8 ms·

> He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discour

by waon 6y ago

> He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discourse with the appropriate parties? Um, yes? How does using any of these methods turn civil discourse into harassment? > Also, he only asked followers to be polite in parenthesis after this That's a real twist. He wouldn't want to sound like he assumes his readers are rude people, would he?

memexy 6y ago
His suggestion wasn't civil and I already wrote why so I'm just going to quote the answer I already gave > I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". The fact that he didn't do that means he did not have such intentions. There is now evidence for an actual harassment campaign against the journalists. Here is the link and the quote (https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1280663446824996865 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...) > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with C_de M_tz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in The coded message is referring to the original journalist. I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence and still think the rationalist community isn't acting in bad faith when there is actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign.
- waon 6y ago
  > I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make any of this true. He didn't make any suggestions to harass anyone. > I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence Your "evidence" is unrelated to Scott himself, and it doesn't show any sort of harassment taking place either.
  - memexy 6y ago
    I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.
    - waon 6y ago
      > I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
      - memexy 6y ago
        Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".
- manfredo 6y ago
  This was Scott's message to the readers: > There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at pui-wing.tam@nytimes.com, contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at 844-NYTNEWS. > (please be polite – I don’t know if Ms. Tam was personally involved in this decision, and whoever is stuck answering feedback forms definitely wasn’t. Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks. If you are some sort of important tech person who the New York Times technology section might want to maintain good relations with, mention that.) Can you elaborate on what was un-civil about this? How is directly the users towards the feedback page of the New York Times and the editor in charge of the NYT technology section (the sub-group that Carl Metz belongs to), accompanied with explicit calls to be civil uncivil? The notion that this is a harassment campaign is nothing less than laughable. Even if the author's real name were used: > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with Cade Metz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in How would this be considered harassment? This user is asking for people who have spoken to Cade Metz to get into contact. How is this evidence of harassment? You seem to be inserting your own imagination that this tweet author is planning to release private contact information or something similar. When in reality this could easily be people sharing their experiences with Cade and whether similar situations of doxxing or de-anonymoization by the NYT authoer have occurred in the past.
  - memexy 6y ago
    Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent. A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved". That would have been civil. Asking anyone to act on your behalf by giving feedback to a 3rd party when it's obvious the intent is negative is not civil. It is sinister. It's also becoming clear to me these conversations are no longer productive and I have started to re-iterate points I made in other posts. If you want to argue further make sure you understand what point I'm making and why and then make a good faith and pertinent point. Otherwise I will no longer engage with anyone responding to posts in this thread. You can also email me if you want and make your points in a longer format. I will consider them and respond if you have well researched rebuttals.

by waon 6y ago

memexy 6y ago

His suggestion wasn't civil and I already wrote why so I'm just going to quote the answer I already gave > I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". The fact that he didn't do that means he did not have such intentions. There is now evidence for an actual harassment campaign against the journalists. Here is the link and the quote (https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1280663446824996865 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...) > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with C_de M_tz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in The coded message is referring to the original journalist. I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence and still think the rationalist community isn't acting in bad faith when there is actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign.

waon 6y ago
> I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make any of this true. He didn't make any suggestions to harass anyone. > I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence Your "evidence" is unrelated to Scott himself, and it doesn't show any sort of harassment taking place either.
- memexy 6y ago
  I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.
  - waon 6y ago
    > I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
    - memexy 6y ago
      Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".
manfredo 6y ago
This was Scott's message to the readers: > There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at pui-wing.tam@nytimes.com, contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at 844-NYTNEWS. > (please be polite – I don’t know if Ms. Tam was personally involved in this decision, and whoever is stuck answering feedback forms definitely wasn’t. Remember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks. If you are some sort of important tech person who the New York Times technology section might want to maintain good relations with, mention that.) Can you elaborate on what was un-civil about this? How is directly the users towards the feedback page of the New York Times and the editor in charge of the NYT technology section (the sub-group that Carl Metz belongs to), accompanied with explicit calls to be civil uncivil? The notion that this is a harassment campaign is nothing less than laughable. Even if the author's real name were used: > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with Cade Metz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in How would this be considered harassment? This user is asking for people who have spoken to Cade Metz to get into contact. How is this evidence of harassment? You seem to be inserting your own imagination that this tweet author is planning to release private contact information or something similar. When in reality this could easily be people sharing their experiences with Cade and whether similar situations of doxxing or de-anonymoization by the NYT authoer have occurred in the past.
- memexy 6y ago
  Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent. A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved". That would have been civil. Asking anyone to act on your behalf by giving feedback to a 3rd party when it's obvious the intent is negative is not civil. It is sinister. It's also becoming clear to me these conversations are no longer productive and I have started to re-iterate points I made in other posts. If you want to argue further make sure you understand what point I'm making and why and then make a good faith and pertinent point. Otherwise I will no longer engage with anyone responding to posts in this thread. You can also email me if you want and make your points in a longer format. I will consider them and respond if you have well researched rebuttals.